Saint Augustine of Hippon was a 3rd century bishop, and also a philosopher, and is generally considered as one of the greatest Christian thinkers of all times, especially by Christians. He said:
"Mere belief without questioning and truth seeking are not sufficient for a genuine faith."
In other words, he relished debate and the questioning of faith, because after all, what use is any religion that can't stand up to the scrutiny of debate?

That said, when most people attend church, it is actualy to attend a religious ceremony or sermon. This is not considered as the right time to suddenly stand up and start questioning the religion, infact it's considered as downright rude, which I think is fair enough, but many Christian pastors, priests and vicars welcome visits to the church from people at other times who wish to question religion because it's an opportunity to debate and possibly even convert someone.

__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

If a political leader today said to you "We must go and wipe out such and such a nation because God says we have to." would you believe him?

If not, then why would you believe that God had anything to do with Moses ordering the slaughter of Canaanites?

I wouldn't, nor should anyone. But I was making a Scriptural argument, and that's what the Bible says about the conquest of Canaan. In the Bible it is under command by Yahweh that Moses is to drive out the Canaanite peoples and slaughter them.
Deuteronomy 7:2
"and when the Lord your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them."

My point was that if you believe in the Judeo-Christian god you can't just discount a seemingly divine command as not coming from him just because it causes evil like mass murder. God has ordered numerous actions we would see as atrocities today in the Bible.

Is that not the bloke who invented the concept of original sin as well?

No, that was Irenaeus, the 2nd century Bishop of Lyons, but Augustine certainly supported it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tonganation

I wouldn't, nor should anyone. But I was making a Scriptural argument, and that's what the Bible says about the conquest of Canaan. In the Bible it is under command by Yahweh that Moses is to drive out the Canaanite peoples and slaughter them.
Deuteronomy 7:2
"and when the Lord your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them."

My point was that if you believe in the Judeo-Christian god you can't just discount a seemingly divine command as not coming from him just because it causes evil like mass murder. God has ordered numerous actions we would see as atrocities today in the Bible.

I most certainly agree, so it's a good job that I don't follow the Judeo-Christian god.

But that said, I still don't see why anyone has to accept that God actualy ordered the Israelites to kill the Canaanites via Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy. It could all be down to Moses himself.

Let's not forget that Deuteronomy consists of three speeches delivered to the Israelites by Moses on the plains of Moab, sometime after he has already recieved the 10 Commandments from God which includes a rule against killing others and several rules against coverting the property of others, yet Moses is ordering the Israelites to kill the Canaanites so that they can take their property. Essentially, what Moses says in Deuteronomy totaly contradicts the very rules that God is considered to have given him.

Remember also that God apparently said:
“See now that I myself am he! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand."

That basicaly suggests that only God alone can kill people and it certainly says that people cannot cannot kill others in his name. Which is exactly what Moses orders the Israelites to do.

We can even consider that Moses had a motive for going against God's wishes, because at pretty much the last minute he was told by God that he would not be permitted to enter the promised land (Canaan) but would instead die on its eastern shores (Num. 20:12). Moses' reaction to this is essentially to tell the Israelites to go against God's commandments, infact, he is telling them this as his parting address. He could well have felt cheated by God (after all, he's just led the Israelites through the wilderness for 40 years on the promise that he will see the promised land) and is in return cheating God by ordering the Israelites to go against God's wishes.

__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

I most certainly agree, so it's a good job that I don't follow the Judeo-Christian god.

But that said, I still don't see why anyone has to accept that God actualy ordered the Israelites to kill the Canaanites via Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy. It could all be down to Moses himself.

Let's not forget that Deuteronomy consists of three speeches delivered to the Israelites by Moses on the plains of Moab, sometime after he has already recieved the 10 Commandments from God which includes a rule against killing others and several rules against coverting the property of others, yet Moses is ordering the Israelites to kill the Canaanites so that they can take their property. Essentially, what Moses says in Deuteronomy totaly contradicts the very rules that God is considered to have given him.

Remember also that God apparently said:
“See now that I myself am he! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand."

That basicaly suggests that only God alone can kill people and it certainly says that people cannot cannot kill others in his name. Which is exactly what Moses orders the Israelites to do.

We can even consider that Moses had a motive for going against God's wishes, because at pretty much the last minute he was told by God that he would not be permitted to enter the promised land (Canaan) but would instead die on its eastern shores (Num. 20:12). Moses' reaction to this is essentially to tell the Israelites to go against God's commandments, infact, he is telling them this as his parting address. He could well have felt cheated by God (after all, he's just led the Israelites through the wilderness for 40 years on the promise that he will see the promised land) and is in return cheating God by ordering the Israelites to go against God's wishes.

That is a good point, Moses is the one speaking about killing the Canaanites rather than Yahweh. I did notice that when I was looking for that verse. I suppose I could have used a verse where Yahweh is actually speaking about a genocide, like the conquest of Amalek by Saul in 1 Samuel 15:5
"Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

Granted it is a prophet speaking for Yahweh, but I'm attempting to characterize the god rather than the men who may be using belief in him to their own ends.

And that's an interesting theory about Moses' feelings toward Yahweh. I could imagine him feeling a little vindictive after that, though most people will view him as the ever-faithful prophet of God.

That is a good point, Moses is the one speaking about killing the Canaanites rather than Yahweh. I did notice that when I was looking for that verse. I suppose I could have used a verse where Yahweh is actually speaking about a genocide, like the conquest of Amalek by Saul in 1 Samuel 15:5
"Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

Granted it is a prophet speaking for Yahweh, but I'm attempting to characterize the god rather than the men who may be using belief in him to their own ends.

And that's an interesting theory about Moses' feelings toward Yahweh. I could imagine him feeling a little vindictive after that, though most people will view him as the ever-faithful prophet of God.

That's actualy 1 Samuel 15:3, not '5', but your point (which is also a good one in my opinion) still stands, it's a prophet speaking for Yahweh to the people instead of Yahweh addressing them himself, in exactly the same way that Moses speaks for Yahweh rather than Yahweh speaking for himself, as we can see when we include the verse leading up to your quote.

'Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” (1 Samuel 15:1-3)

Y'see the problem of 'attempting to characterize the god rather than the men who may be using belief in him to their own ends'? Pretty much all of what Yahweh apparently says to the people actualy comes out of the mouths of 'men who may be using belief in him to their own ends' rather than from Yahweh himself.

Remember, the definition of a 'prophet' is a person who claims to serve as an intermediary between people and God.

__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

"I have no special regard for Satan; but I can at least claim that I have no prejudice against him. It may even be that I lean a little his way, on account of his not having a fair show. All religions issue bibles against him, and say the most injurious things about him, but we never hear his side. We have none but evidence for the prosecution and yet we have rendered the verdict."

"I have no special regard for Satan; but I can at least claim that I have no prejudice against him. It may even be that I lean a little his way, on account of his not having a fair show. All religions issue bibles against him, and say the most injurious things about him, but we never hear his side. We have none but evidence for the prosecution and yet we have rendered the verdict."

-Mark Twain

That's actualy quite ironic because Satan's role before his apprent fall is pretty much 'God's prosecutor', the figure who accuses the unfaithful.

__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

I think when people read the Bible they tend to focus too much on little details and take it way too literally (or in the case of a lot of commenters on youtube, don't read it at all except for maybe a couple verses, and say they've read it extensively), so they may believe but refuse to accept any thoughts that may challenge their perspective, or on the other hand, they just dismiss it as a "fairy tale" without bothering to understand the bigger picture.

To me, Satan is not some fallen angel (or I should say some pale white guy that likes to wear angel wings and a black robe), or red horned devil that looks like a minotaur or a steroid-using Pan from Greek mythology for ****-if-I-know-why. Satan is just the personification of evil. What Satan "looks like" just depends on your imagination.

There's no "forgiving" Satan, or any need to sympathize for him, as he's just doing what his creator created him to do. Why was Satan created? Well, what is good without evil? Light without darkness? Where is the free will without at least two decisions to choose from? Satan is necessary.

That's actualy 1 Samuel 15:3, not '5', but your point (which is also a good one in my opinion) still stands, it's a prophet speaking for Yahweh to the people instead of Yahweh addressing them himself, in exactly the same way that Moses speaks for Yahweh rather than Yahweh speaking for himself, as we can see when we include the verse leading up to your quote.

Y'see the problem of 'attempting to characterize the god rather than the men who may be using belief in him to their own ends'? Pretty much all of what Yahweh apparently says to the people actualy comes out of the mouths of 'men who may be using belief in him to their own ends' rather than from Yahweh himself.

Remember, the definition of a 'prophet' is a person who claims to serve as an intermediary between people and God.

Well, how else are you suppose to characterize a god like Yahweh, who only speaks through prophets, except by looking at what those prophets say about him? There's no other source of information on the ideals and desires of such a god, at least as far as I know. What the prophets say about Yahweh is all we have to go on if we're using the Bible as a source (as Christians do). For a counter example, how am I to characterize Zeus except by the stories that we know of from Greek mythology? I'm putting Yahweh on the same level. To say these are not an accurate source of information on what people thought (or still think, in the case of the Judeo-Christian god) of a god is to say that we can't know anything about a particular god, it seems.

Well, how else are you suppose to characterize a god like Yahweh, who only speaks through prophets, except by looking at what those prophets say about him? There's no other source of information on the ideals and desires of such a god, at least as far as I know. What the prophets say about Yahweh is all we have to go on if we're using the Bible as a source (as Christians do). For a counter example, how am I to characterize Zeus except by the stories that we know of from Greek mythology? I'm putting Yahweh on the same level. To say these are not an accurate source of information on what people thought (or still think, in the case of the Judeo-Christian god) of a god is to say that we can't know anything about a particular god, it seems.

You just hit the nail squarely on the head. Y'see, several of the prophets contradict each other and, as we've seen, even themselves, (such as Moses telling the Israelites that God doesn't want them to kill, then ordering them to kill the Canaanites in God's name) so how can we possibly tell which prophet, if any, is accurately depicting God's wishes? By definition, the omnipotent, omnipresent and omniescent Abrahamic God is supposedly so much more advanced than us or any other god that we have depicted that humans attempting to understand anything about him at all would be akin to the average bacterium attempting to understand ourselves.

In comparison, Zeus and the rest of the Greek gods, and other polytheistic pantheons too, are much easier for us to understand because they are basicaly depicted as human-like gods with human egos, desires, squabbles, ect. If they contradict themselves it's understandable because they have human-like flaws of character, but if the Abrahamic God appears to be contradicting himself, then we have to consider that the sources of information we have about him are themselves flawed, which then leads us to consider that it's possible that nothing that has been said about God by the prophets is actualy accurate.

Remember, in a court of law, when a witness contradicts themselves, or if their evidence is discovered to be flawed in any other way, they are often considered as an 'unreliable witness' and their testimony is often deemed as untrustable and inadmissible. Should we treat the prophets any differently?

__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

You just hit the nail squarely on the head. Y'see, several of the prophets contradict each other and, as we've seen, even themselves, (such as Moses telling the Israelites that God doesn't want them to kill, then ordering them to kill the Canaanites in God's name) so how can we possibly tell which prophet, if any, is accurately depicting God's wishes? By definition, the omnipotent, omnipresent and omniescent Abrahamic God is supposedly so much more advanced than us or any other god that we have depicted that humans attempting to understand anything about him at all would be akin to the average bacterium attempting to understand ourselves.

In comparison, Zeus and the rest of the Greek gods, and other polytheistic pantheons too, are much easier for us to understand because they are basicaly depicted as human-like gods with human egos, desires, squabbles, ect. If they contradict themselves it's understandable because they have human-like flaws of character, but if the Abrahamic God appears to be contradicting himself, then we have to consider that the sources of information we have about him are themselves flawed, which then leads us to consider that it's possible that nothing that has been said about God by the prophets is actualy accurate.

Remember, in a court of law, when a witness contradicts themselves, or if their evidence is discovered to be flawed in any other way, they are often considered as an 'unreliable witness' and their testimony is often deemed as untrustable and inadmissible. Should we treat the prophets any differently?

Ok, I'm willing to give you that we are agnostic about a particular god unless he truly speaks for himself. I should have taken the route of characterizing how people think or thought about said god rather than the actual god himself. This is how he's characterized in the literature that Jews and Christians believe, and these people put stock in the prophets. That seems to be the way to argue my original point with them, since to deny a part of the Bible is to put their faith on the line.

And I always thought Yahweh had his share of human flaws, like jealousy, at least when he was still part of a polytheistic "pantheon" of gods around 1000 or so BCE. Was he considered to be so great and incomprehensible to humans then, or was that a development that happened when true monotheistic Judaism began around 600 BCE?

Ok, I'm willing to give you that we are agnostic about a particular god unless he truly speaks for himself. I should have taken the route of characterizing how people think or thought about said god rather than the actual god himself. This is how he's characterized in the literature that Jews and Christians believe, and these people put stock in the prophets. That seems to be the way to argue my original point with them, since to deny a part of the Bible is to put their faith on the line.

And I always thought Yahweh had his share of human flaws, like jealousy, at least when he was still part of a polytheistic "pantheon" of gods around 1000 or so BCE. Was he considered to be so great and incomprehensible to humans then, or was that a development that happened when true monotheistic Judaism began around 600 BCE?

Yeah, I'm willing to agree with that.

__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

So God would never order an act of mass murder? The fact that God orders Moses to slaughter the Canaanites in the books of Exodus and Numbers, plus his command of Joshua to slaughter those in the city of Jericho seems to contradict that.

You are referring to the Yaweh, the God who is mentioned in the Old Testament. Back then there was a lot of murder and mayhem, but once the New Testament came out, then God was supposed to become "a loving God."

It is the God of the New Testament that I am referring to, not the Old Testament God.

You are referring to the Yaweh, the God who is mentioned in the Old Testament. Back then there was a lot of murder and mayhem, but once the New Testament came out, then God was supposed to become "a loving God."

It is the God of the New Testament that I am referring to, not the Old Testament God.

ron666

Considering that the New Testament relies upon the Old Testament to be true, then surely it's the same 'God'?

__________________
“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”
― Marcus Aurelius

Considering that the New Testament relies upon the Old Testament to be true, then surely it's the same 'God'?

Hmmm, that's a good point. But have you ever read the Old Testament? God seems like an angry vengeful type of god, but in the New Testament, he suddenly becomes a loving God. It is probably the same God, but our interpretation of His intentions has probably changed from one to the other.